IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE (SURAJ @ SURESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )

Dated : 10-02-2026 Shri Gourav Shrivastava - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri H.S.Rathore - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.

1. Heard on I.A.No.15493/2025, which is second (repeat) application for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant (Suraj @ Suresh). It is informed that first application for suspension of sentence of the appellant was dismissed by order dated 25.4.2024.

2. The appellant has been convicted by judgment dated 25.8.2023 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, (Special Judge POCSO Act), Dhar for commission of offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC, sentenced to undergo 5 years RI with fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 366 of IPC, sentenced to undergo 7 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 5(1)/6 of POCSO Act, sentenced to undergo 20 years RI with fine of Rs.1000/- with default clause.

3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that appellant had abducted a minor girl and forced her for sexual intercourse.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued and referred the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and also the Court statement. As per her version she was in love with the appellant and had gone along with him to the State of Gujarat where she stayed with him. Learned counsel argued that as per the scholar register, the age of the prosecutirx was 16 years and one month on the date of incident and the source of recording of age in the scholar register has not been proved by the prosecution. The age of the appellant was 22 years at the time of incident and he has already remained in jail for more than 2 and half years. The appeal is of 2023 and the final hearing of the same shall take considerable time. Hence, it is prayed that the repeat application for suspension of jail sentence filed on behalf of the appellant be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State has opposed the prayer for suspension of jail sentence and submitted that the FSL and DNA are positive and the prosecution has successfully proved the case and the application is liable to be dismissed.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the statement of prosecutrix from which it is clear that she was consenting party and remained with the appellant for more than one month in Gujarat. Apart from that the prosecution has not proved the source of recording of date of birth in the scholar register. In the case of Teju Bai vs. State of M.P. reported in 2025(1) MPLJ(Cr.) [175] it has been held that if the prosecution does not prove the source of date of birth recorded in scholar register and the same is recorded on the guess, the same cannot be the basis for conviction. Appellant has already remained in jail for more than two and half years and the appeal is of the year 2023, the final hearing of the appeal is likely to take considerable time, I.A.No.15493/2025 deserves to be allowed.

7. Accordingly, the jail sentence of appellant Suraj @ Suiresh, shall remain suspended upon his depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited) and on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 4.5.2026 and on all subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.

8. With the aforesaid, I.A No.15493/2025 is allowed and disposed of.

C.c. as per rules.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)

JUDGE JUDGE SS/-